Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite (the app must be running) and the resource types covered, but does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any read-only guarantees. This is a modest level of transparency for a simple read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the exact purpose without any waste. Every word contributes meaning, fitting the standard of 'every sentence earns its place'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the 'what' but omits the 'when' and the shape of the response. Given the lack of annotations, more behavioral and usage context would be expected for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and clearly explains the 'app' parameter as 'App ID (UUID) or subdomain'. The description adds minimal context by referring to 'a running app container', but does not significantly enrich the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: CPU, memory, and network stats for a running app container. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app or get_app_status, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: the tool is for retrieving resource metrics for a running app. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like get_logs or get_app_status, though the specificity of the stats makes the purpose self-explanatory.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.